Breaking up is hard to do, especially with social media. But thousands of people are doing just that, and with the new year and its inevitable resolutions just around the corner, it might be a good time to examine the ethics of using software and platforms.

We use Facebook as an example for this article, but the same questions are relevant for many different types of social media.

Is Facebook ethical? It’s an important question, and the answer isn’t quite “yes” or “no.” First, we need to make a short detour through a few thoughts about what ethics actually are.

A particular “ethics” is a set of rules or provisions that an individual or group considers ideal for solving problems with the best intentions. What’s good in one situation isn’t necessarily applicable in others, and ethics describes what we do when we choose between alternatives.

The general “vibe” of complaints about Facebook’s ethics (or practically any other social media platform) from users and commentators is that it aggregates power from our daily interactions, then sells the data we produce.

Within the field of media studies there’s some equivocation about whether Facebook operates something like a factory where users churn out vast amounts of work for no pay, or whether it’s an insidious machine that makes use of all our data in giant statistical sets.

Other popular responses fear the persistent invasion of our privacy, or else note how reduced our metaphors have become. We can’t love anymore, we can only like.

Critics like Eli Parisier argue that through the fairly limited means of interaction – likes, pokes, comments – it corrupts some aspect of our social being as a species and as individuals. Some vibrant aspect of being human is lost, replaced by a placid and emotionally grey terrain of “LOLs” and smileys that lacks genuine interaction.

Social empowerment

There have always been complaints when new cultural technologies arrive on the scene: heavy metal and rock and roll, role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons and even writing.

That said, there is something different about the way in which Facebook has power over our social interactions and how these interactions make money for them. If this is a concern for people, then there are alternatives.

The most common response to ethical concerns about Facebook is “why don’t you just leave?” This question is an important one, with a few answers.

First: your “leaving” doesn’t actually remove any of the data from Facebook’s servers – by agreeing to the terms of use, you’ve already given Facebook all of your photos and data, and they’re certainly going to hang on to it if they can. Long after you remove yourself from the network, your shadow will linger on Facebook’s servers.

In fact, the relationship is one you rarely have control over in the first place – the infamous shadow profiles track you through social media widgets, which build a profile without needing you to be logged in (if you want to stop that, consider using blocking programs like Ghostery or AdBlock).

Second: for many people, Facebook represents a convenient way of keeping in touch with their friends and family. Leaving Facebook can mean missing out on news, photos and invitations. Moving to alternatives, like Diaspora, can feel like the Wild West without as many friendly faces around.

Diaspora attempts to provide social networking without the problems of Facebook. What it does differently, to protect your privacy, is to allow you to choose where your data is hosted.

This means that you can act as your own data host, if you’re technically proficient. If not, a friend, or a trusted server can do the job for you.

Diaspora is not the total solution, but it does act to undermine the monopolies over social media held by sites like Facebook and Twitter. Diaspora is an Open Source platform, so if you have issues with the program you can modify it yourself.

Previously, the project has been plagued with a wide range of problems, including funding issues, the death of the lead programmer, and internal conflicts. But in the past year the project has picked up new life, is gathering users and, despite its rocky past, Diaspora now works.

The solutions to our ethical problems with social media don’t all have to be technical. Legislation in California is allowing for kids to request that their data be deleted from social media sites before they reach the age of maturity. In turn, because Facebook is incorporated in Ireland for tax purposes, laws in the European Union allow non-US citizens to uncover all the data that Facebook holds on them.

If you have ethical concerns about Facebook, your response is not limited to leaving. Knowing more about what data exists about you, how it’s used, and what your alternatives are can allow us to be more ethical without pulling the plug entirely.

*Robbie and Luke can be found on Diaspora. They have two friends each, including each other.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

Robbie Fordyce is a PhD candidate, School of Culture and Communication and Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society at University of Melbourne. Luke van Ryn is a PhD candidate, Media and Communications at University of Melbourne.

“For all the clumsy rhetorical lip service [former Yahoo News head] Guy Vidra pays to The New Republic’s hallowed intellectual traditions, this is what his vision of a nimble digital news product finally translates into: a vaguely journalistic veneer strategically designed to conceal a rancid interior of ‘elevated’ advertising.”

Indian e-commerce company Flipkart is said to be raising $600 million in its latest bid to compete with Amazon. The company is also said to have garnered a higher valuation with this funding round — quite the feat, considering it was previously valued at around $11.5 billion. [Source: The Economic Times]

Here comes another unicorn: Sprinklr, a New York-based marketing company, has raised $46 million at a $1.17 billion valuation. The funds will be used to help the 700-person company expand its marketing platform. [Source: Fortune]

Curator, the tool Twitter created so the media could find and share tweets with its audience, is now available to the public. Because if there’s anything people wanted to see more of, it’s tweets randomly inserted into blog posts, television spots, and other forms of media. [Source: TechCrunch]

A court in France has decided not to ban Uber’s low-cost services until the country’s highest appeals court, or its supreme court, weigh in on the constitutionality of a new transport law. [Source: The Wall Street Journal]

Tinder is refocusing on its spam-fighting efforts in the wake of reports that movie studios are using the service to promote their movies, scammers are attempting to steal information via the app, and pranksters have created tools that trick heterosexual men into flirting with each other. [Source: The Verge]

Uber offers drivers whose accounts have been deactivated a choice: attend a class that requires them to pass an exam, or take a class that doesn’t. The latter has been informed by Uber employees, and the company has sent thousands of drivers to it, according to a report from BuzzFeed. Why is that a problem? Because Uber isn’t supposed to provide its drivers with formal training; doing so makes them bona fide employees, not independent contractors. [Source: BuzzFeed]

Flipboard users will now be able to collect articles and share them via private magazines visible only to members of certain groups. The feature is aimed at students working in the same class, companies sharing press coverage, and other groups that might want an easy way to share Web pages with each other without having to use public tools like Facebook or Twitter. [Source: Flipboard]

T-Mobile has tasked its customers with creating a real-world coverage map that makes it easier to tell where its service works and where it doesn’t. Instead of guessing at where its customers will get service — which is what other carriers do, the company claims — it’s asking people to verify its predictions so it can be more honest with consumers. [Source: T-Mobile]

Amazon isn’t happy that the Federal Aviation Administration wants to restrict how, when, and where it tests the drones it hopes will deliver packages some time in the future. So it’s opened a secret test facility in British Columbia where it can operate without pesky regulators worrying about drones falling out of the sky and hurting bystanders. [Source: The Guardian]

GitHub has been the target of a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack over the last few days, perhaps because the Chinese government wants to prevent anti-censorship tools hosted on the service from spreading. The company now says that it’s able to operate despite the attacks, albeit with intermittent outages. [Source: Reuters]